Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 10, 2018

The Trump administration proposes to dramatically limit the right to demonstrate near the White House and on the National Mall, including in ways that would violate court orders that have stood for decades. The proposal would close 80 percent of the White House sidewalk, put new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and open the door to charging fees for protesting. Fee requirements could make mass protests like Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic 1963 March on Washington and its "I have a dream" speech too expensive to happen. The public has until October 15 to comment on the plans, and on Monday, [the ACLU] submitted our formal written comment explaining why the planned changes are unconstitutional.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

With a right wing court we're likely to see changes in the interpretation of our personal rights.

It's necessary to cement the stranglehold on power the GOP is working towards.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-10 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 12

If not the first, then the second.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-10 02:06 PM | Reply

With a right wing court we're likely to see changes in the interpretation of our personal rights.

A thing exists known as legislation. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were bipartisan pieces of legislation signed into law by the duly elected president.

That's how it used to be done in this country before SCOTUS morphed into a super-legislator under the notion of a living and breathing Constitution whereby the document is SO malleable that it's text and original meaning all-but disappear.

A conservative, originalist court will tip power and debate back toward congress, which is where it belongs.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 02:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

I chose my words carefully with my second sentence. It speaks to a conversation I was having with Syco a few days ago that got cut short unexpectedly due to real life intruding.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 02:22 PM | Reply

A conservative, originalist court will tip power and debate back toward congress, which is where it belongs.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 02:20 PM | Reply

Your ignorance of the issues at hand are quite telling. Not even Scalia practiced originalism.

www.newyorker.com

Scalia's Contradictory Originalism

His admirers are right that he was brilliant and that he cultivated a bold vision of the Constitution, but these qualities are precisely the source of the damage he leaves behind him. Scalia's originalist theory elevated an impossible ideal -- that judging should be a politically neutral act -- even as, in recent decades, it provided a cover for opinions that were evidently partisan. The fight now beginning over his replacement crystallizes both of these realities: there is official cant about the neutrality of the Court, and there is partisanship in the trenches.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-10 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

www.acslaw.org

For several decades, conservatives have espoused originalism as a theory of constitutional interpretation. This is the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is limited to its original intent. Originalism is the idea that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted and can change only by constitutional interpretation. In other words, originalists give no consideration to how the Constitution has been interpreted and implemented over the course of American history. In this way, they ignore what we really are celebrating about the Constitution.

Originalism does not reflect what the Supreme Court ever has done in interpreting the Constitution. The Court always has looked at the text and the underlying purpose and the original intent and traditions and precedents and contemporary social needs. Even the justices who most advocate originalism abandon it when it does not serve their purposes. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are adamantly opposed to affirmative action and simply choose to ignore that the original intent of the equal protection clause was to allow race-conscious programs to benefit minorities. The Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, adopted many such efforts.

There is an obvious reason why originalism never has – and hopefully never will – be followed by a majority of the Court: it makes no sense to be governed in the 21st century by the intent of those in 1787 (or 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted or 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified). Simple examples illustrate this. The Constitution uses the pronoun "he" to refer to the President and Vice President and the original understanding is that they would be men. An originalist would have to say that it is unconstitutional to elect a woman to these offices until the Constitution is amended.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-10 02:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

An originalist would have to say that it is unconstitutional to elect a woman to these offices until the Constitution is amended.

That's a silly straw man, cite an originalist that has actually said that. Also, examine some of the recent opinions of the liberal wing of the Court. They too espouse orginalist tones as they discuss the text and history of the Constitution and Amendments. A liberal counterweight in the originalist interpretive model is a good thing.

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2018-10-10 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"This is the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is limited to its original intent."

Then, they convolute the ever-loving ---- out of "intent" to say why the Air Force can rightfully exist in accord with Article I Section VIII, which only specifies Army and Navy.

It's a house of cards. Intellectual sophistry.

Does anyone actually think the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to legalize gay marriage? LOL.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Right wing fascism on full display.

And as long as desolate states have more voting power than actual human beings. Republicans will continue to dominate the federal government.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-10 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And as long as desolate states have more voting power than actual human beings. Republicans will continue to dominate the federal government."

Now that is something the Founders actually intended. We lean conservative, by design.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 05:14 PM | Reply

"A thing exists known as legislation. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were bipartisan pieces of legislation signed into law by the duly elected president."

Well if thats the way youre gonna be...

How come various parts of the Voting Rights Act are no longer in force, JeffJ? Did the President sign those changes into law? No? Then what disrupted and corrupted your cherished legislative process by which social injustice shall be righted?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 06:15 PM | Reply

= A conservative, originalist court

lmao.... like Scalia who actually did give new meaning to the 2nd Amendment?

"3. The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an "individual" or "personal" right to bear arms.

Before the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, courts had ruled that the right of individual citizens to bear arms existed only within the context of participation in the militia. In Heller, the Supreme Court overturned that precedent, delivering gun rights advocates their biggest legal victory.

This was not, however, a return to an "original understanding" of the Second Amendment, as Justice Antonin Scalia claimed for the majority. It's not that the Founding Fathers were against the idea of an individual right to bear arms. It just was not an issue that concerned them."

www.washingtonpost.com

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-10 09:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12 | POSTED BY CORK

*angry his team can't legislate from the bench.

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 09:06 PM | Reply

You better start open carrying guns when you protest or prepare to get your ass kicked.

#14 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-10-10 09:37 PM | Reply

*angry his team can't legislate from the bench.

There's a team legislating from the bench?
Which team is it?
Yours?

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 09:42 PM | Reply

#12 | Posted by Corky

There's an opinion piece in the WaPo, then there's a scholarly article that concludes otherwise.

These views [an individual right to bear arms] were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.
The History of the Second Amendment
scholar.valpo.edu

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2018-10-10 10:11 PM | Reply

- There's an opinion piece in the WaPo, then there's a scholarly article

That's pretty funny.

It's an article by this guy, who happens to agree with many other scholars about the 2nd and about Scalia.

cuhk.academia.edu

Or perhaps you prefer:

www.newyorker.com

newrepublic.com

www.theatlantic.com

Or maybe: In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University...

MW: There are surprises in this book for people who support gun control, and people who are for gun rights. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was following his doctrine of originalism.

But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting.

Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical.

In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias.

Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias."

www.motherjones.com

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-10 10:50 PM | Reply

Link lizard's got a lot of links, including the authoritative Mother Jones. Impressive.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-10 10:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There's a team legislating from the bench?
Which team is it?
Yours?

#15 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Any judge that upholds sanctuary cities is legislating from the bench.

That will be coming to an end soon. bookmark it.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 10:56 PM | Reply

scholars
www.newyorker.com
#17 | POSTED BY CORKY

LOL

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 10:57 PM | Reply

"Any judge that upholds sanctuary cities is legislating from the bench."

Garbage. You need to study American law a little more Comrade.

The executive order and law Humpy was relying on for his lawsuits against sanctuary cities was ruled unconstitutional.

If Congress wishes to place conditions on federal funding to sanctuary cities then they can have at it. Figure the odds of them passing it in 30 days.

It's not up to humpy. He can sign the law. He can enforce the law. He cannot make it. Congress holds the purse stings. Not humpy.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-10 11:13 PM | Reply

#17 | Posted by Corky

You left out the searing legal analysis of retired Chief Justice Warren Burger that the individual rights theory is a "fraud" published in auspicious legal treatise, Parade Magazine. But know I can match you one for one on links to opinions that hold the right to bear arms is an individual one. In the end only one matters, the majority opinion in Heller. Like Roe, it's here to stay. Like the originalist interpretive model, as opposed to the "I know it when I see it" living constitution model, is here to stay.

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2018-10-10 11:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can't wait to see the freedom hating republicans defend this unAmerican ----.

#23 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-11 12:00 AM | Reply

can't wait to see the freedom hating republicans defend this unAmerican ----.

#23 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

They will because it's their kind doing it.

#24 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-10-11 12:13 AM | Reply

On topic - This seems like a worthwhile cause for the ACLU to take up.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-11 12:20 AM | Reply

"Any judge that upholds sanctuary cities is legislating from the bench."

Any judge that upholds sanctuary cities is upholding the separation of powers and state's rights.

JeffJ why can't you correct his obvious mistakes? Is it because you don't want to agree with truths you don't welcome?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 12:56 AM | Reply

JeffJ why can't you correct his obvious mistakes? Is it because you don't want to agree with truths you don't welcome?

#26 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Why do you need me to do your heavy-lifting for you?

I'm going to bed - you are on your own.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-11 01:09 AM | Reply

Heavy lifting?
It's more like swatting flies.
The lies just keep coming.

It wouldn't hurt you to stand up for the truth, is all I'm saying.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 01:30 AM | Reply

Any judge that upholds sanctuary cities is legislating from the bench.

That will be coming to an end soon. bookmark it.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 10:56 PM | Reply

If you knew anything it would help. If you believe in the rule of law and the constitution you would support these so called Sanctuary cities.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-11 06:49 AM | Reply

- the authoritative Mother Jones

The author of the article has forgotten more about law than you ever knew, dumbass.

- In the end only one matters, the majority opinion in Heller. Like Roe, it's here to stay.

Neither is written in stone and either could be changed..... and saying that because either is current law makes them "right" is just, well, very lawyerly of you.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-11 10:07 AM | Reply

Here we go with the hypocrisy again. One President wants to put more controls around something that has gotten out of control but is part of our Bill of Rights and the other side screams. Then, along comes a President of a different party who wants to put more controls around something that has gotten out of control but is part of our Bill of Rights and the other side screams, too.

If ANYONE is against putting controls around protesting then logically they have to be against putting controls around guns. And vice verse. That applies to Dems and Reps. Sorry, but being a hypocrite just dumbs down the country. Both protesting and gun use has gotten out of control. Both have elements that are useless for common citizens in today's America. Protesting in mass SHOULD cost money and anyone who has seen what the ground looks like after a mass protest would have to agree. We are either going to modernize our Amendments or we aren't. Picking and choosing based on party lines is hypocritical and harmful to our country's integrity.

#31 | Posted by humtake at 2018-10-11 12:20 PM | Reply

Intellectual sophistry.

The reality of accepting the interpretations of the privileged class as principled (nee legal) when they're obvious injustices to all with an objective understanding of the English language, since the root purpose of any justice system should be to protect the least powerful majority from the avarices of the smaller minority wielding outsized power, money and influence.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-10-11 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any judge that upholds sanctuary cities is legislating from the bench.
#19 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Because ordering local law enforcement to enforce federal policy is COMPLETELY Constitutional, right hack?

I invoke The Sheeple Rule. If Sheeple believes it, it's wrong.

#33 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

On topic - This seems like a worthwhile cause for the ACLU to take up.

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yep. But Kavanaugh is on the Court now. So it's a loser for the ACLU.

If people wanted First Amendment rights, they should have been born corporations instead.

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I invoke The Sheeple Rule. If Sheeple believes it, it's wrong.
#33 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I believe in peaceful protests. I believe in a world without wars. I believe that in a democracy, politicians should represent the people.
I believe that money in politics negates that. I believe in human rights. I believe in healthcare for everyone. I believe in honesty and integrity. I believe in God.

I believe that you're politically partisan.

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 03:13 PM | Reply

How does Kavanaugh being on the court equate as a loss for the ACLU?

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-11 03:13 PM | Reply

as = to

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-11 03:13 PM | Reply

Syco is butthurt that his team can't stuff and legislate from the bench.

#38 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 03:15 PM | Reply

Regarding Scalia, while i always respected his humor and ability to wordsmith, I find Judge Posner's critiques of Scalia's "originalism" to be very convincing.

Heller: newrepublic.com

Generally: newrepublic.com

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 03:42 PM | Reply

I think that if just 30% more of the protesters started bathing regularly, and then if expected cool down into the 50-degree weather happens next week, America will be able to tolerate the protesters' message.

#40 | Posted by Spork at 2018-10-11 04:06 PM | Reply

I invoke The Sheeple Rule. If Sheeple believes it, it's wrong.
#33 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
I believe in peaceful protests. I believe in a world without wars. I believe that in a democracy, politicians should represent the people.
I believe that money in politics negates that. I believe in human rights. I believe in healthcare for everyone. I believe in honesty and integrity. I believe in God.
I believe that you're politically partisan.

#35 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Yes, and you used to be a Democrat.

Seriously though, the Rule refers to things you actually believe in.

#41 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 04:13 PM | Reply

Syco is butthurt that his team can't stuff and legislate from the bench.

#38 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Push a Justice through in 2020 in violation of the "McConnell Rule" and they will. And I'll be supporting it.

#42 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 04:14 PM | Reply

Sheeple needs to STFU. While Sycophant and i have had our disagreements he's a stand up type of person. You I wouldn't piss on even if you were on fire. You capisce???

#43 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-11 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- stuff and legislate from the bench.

And I'll be supporting it.
#42 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Obviously. you support it now, were it possible.

#44 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 04:24 PM | Reply

- You I wouldn't piss on even if you were on fire.

Thank god. I can only imagine the horror of being on fire,

only to see you coming at me with your leg hiked up, Sumo wrestler style.

#45 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- stuff and legislate from the bench.
And I'll be supporting it.
#42 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Obviously. you support it now, were it possible.

#44 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

It's cute how you delete words from your post to make it look like I said something completely different.

How pathetic are you?

#46 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-12 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- to make it look like I said something completely different.
#46 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

What, that you'll support stuffing and legislating from the bench under certain circumstances?

No need hurdle through your hoops to get to the meat.

You'd cheer extrajudicial "unconstitutional" decisions for anything you can't get congress to pass.

It's what democrats do - pronounce edicts.

#47 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-12 01:20 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) cut a deal behind closed doors with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) late Thursday to fast-track 15 more of Trump's right-wing judges to lifetime federal court positions. Make no mistake, today was yet another step in the GOP's takeover of our courts, stacking the deck against all working people, especially immigrants, women and minorities. McConnell is a ruthless racist lying pig.

#48 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-12 05:04 PM | Reply

A thing exists known as legislation. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were bipartisan pieces of legislation signed into law by the duly elected president.

That's how it used to be done in this country before SCOTUS morphed into a super-legislator under the notion of a living and breathing Constitution whereby the document is SO malleable that it's text and original meaning all-but disappear.

A conservative, originalist court will tip power and debate back toward congress, which is where it belongs.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ

That entire argument relies on the assumption that congress acts in the interest of the voters.

But congress is now so corrupt and captured by donors, that the courts were the only thing left to actually create positive change.

And the court is the thing that STRUCK DOWN the voting rights act that congress passed so there goes the other half of your argument.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-12 08:34 PM | Reply

#49

Nope, the Court did not strike down the Voting Rights Act. The Court struck Section 4, the coverage formula. Section 2 which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color or certain minority languages groups is alive and well.

Congress is free to enact another formula anytime it sees fit.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2018-10-12 08:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How pathetic are you?

#46 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

As you're addressing comrade sheepleski, I'm assuming this is rhetorical?

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-12 10:07 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort